RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC: Maybe she`ll get a vote sometime or -- "POLITICO" reports this afternoon that there will be no vote on the new Attorney General this week.

Senate Republicans are reportedly not talking about when that vote might happen, maybe she`ll get a vote sometime or some other time, some time when the Senate has room for little chores like hiring a chief law enforcement officer for the nation to whom no one has any substantive objection.

Meanwhile, the current occupant of that job says he`ll happily stay until his replacement is confirmed, which you think would make Republicans crazy because they hate Eric Holder so much.

But apparently in this Senate, the crazy is less powerful than the lazy or whatever it is that`s keeping them from voting on Loretta Lynch.

Tick-tock. Now, it`s time for THE LAST WORD with Lawrence O`Donnell, good evening Lawrence.

LAWRENCE O`DONNELL, HOST, THE LAST WORD: Good evening Rachel. We do have that breaking news about Hillary Clinton`s use of personal --

MADDOW: Right --

O`DONNELL: E-mails at the State Department which you first referred to, we`ll develop a little bit more on it that we`re going to get into.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He was killed because of political activities, and he was killed because he was Nemtsov.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: About 22 seconds after Jones makes the jump, something goes wrong in mid air. The 22-year-old who has epilepsy says he blacked out.

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, PRIME MINISTER, ISRAEL: You may not have heard, see, I`ll be speaking in Congress tomorrow.

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: As a matter of policy, we think it`s a mistake.

NETANYAHU: Never has so much been written about a speech that hasn`t been given.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O`DONNELL: Earlier tonight, Senate Democrats blocked what is usually a routine procedural motion to enter into a conference with the House Of Representatives over the Senate version of the bill and the house version of the same bill.

In this case, for the funding of the Department of Homeland Security, but nothing -- but nothing is routine in Congress anymore.

Harry Reid says Democrats are blocking the conference because the only real difference between the bills is that the house bill nullifies President Obama`s executive actions on immigration.

And the Senate Democrats want that provision simply stripped out of the house bill. In other words, for the Democrats in the Senate, there is nothing to negotiate in conference.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. HARRY REID (D), NEVADA: I`ve been very clear for days now that we will not go to conference. The majority knows that, the speaker of the house knows that, Senate Democrats will not support going to conference because it will be just totally counter-productive.

House Republicans have no intention using that conference to grab legislation or pass both house of Congress.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O`DONNELL: The Senate`s refusal now to go to conference makes it at least theoretically possible for Democrats in the House of Representatives to employ an obscure house rule to force the Senate bill to come to a vote in the house.

Republican Congressman Steve King of Iowa who voted against both the short-term funding measures last Friday has introduced a resolution to block house Democrats from using that rule.

STEVE LATOURETTE, FORMER CONGRESSMAN: Well, it is really a matter of whether cooler heads actually prevail, but I don`t think that`s going to happen.

You know, as a -- as a Republican, when they came back for the deadline of February the 27th and this judge had given them a gift by staying the President`s executive orders on immigration, they had won.

You know, the Homeland Security bill was a bill written by Republicans, funded at Republican-wanted levels and the stated purpose was to stop what the President was doing, what the immigration -- this judge had done that.

And I really thought, my goodness, this is wonderful, you can declare victory, go home and then move on to other things.

Cooler heads did not prevail and you continue to have 50, 51, 52 Republicans who -- they don`t have a plan B. I thought that -- in the clips introducing the show, the most telling was Speaker Boehner saying, do they have a plan?

He says not that I`m aware of. Well, I don`t think anybody is aware of it, and they never have a plan B, they just know what they don`t want, and that really isn`t what happens when you`re trying to govern a country.

O`DONNELL: But Beth Fouhy, isn`t it John Boehner who has to have the plan B?

BETH FOUHY, SENIOR EDITOR, MSNBC: Well, you know that at the end of the day they`re going to vote for a clean bill and they are going to fund the Department of Homeland Security.

This is all just --

O`DONNELL: You know --

FOUHY: Crazy kabuki theater --

O`DONNELL: I was saying that last week, I hate to taking the suspense out of it. But that`s --

(LAUGHTER)

Was saying last week because we`ve seen these plays run before.

FOUHY: I know, but finally, I mean Lawrence, let`s face it. I mean Republicans have marginalized themselves so much now that they are both the shutdown party and the party that opposes immigration.

And they are going on a suicide mission with this one. There was a great study that came out today from the Senate -- from the American Progress in Brooklyn called "States of Change".

It said that by 2060, eleven of the sixteen largest states in the United States are going to be majority-minority. Basically, Hispanics are going to be a larger percentage of the population, then white people.

That means Hispanic voters, and that means that if Republicans don`t figure out a way to clean up their act with Hispanic voters, they`re going to lose their relevance as a national party.

And doing what they`re doing around the President`s action on -- executive action is not going to help them in that.

O`DONNELL: Jeremy Peters, do you think the Democrats will actually be able to use this rule to kind of pole vault the Senate bill onto the house floor and get a vote on it?

JEREMY PETERS, CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER, NEW YORK TIMES: I think ultimately the end result is a clean bill.

I think that that is where Republicans are starting to come around and realize that at the end of the week, they may not have any other option.

Now whether or not there`s another short-term funding bill that just buys more time until John Boehner and his lieutenants can convince more conservatives to come around, I don`t know.

But I do know that the end result will not only be -- well, I don`t know, but I can almost predict with quite a bit of certainty that the end result will be a clean bill.

Clean bill, the end result will also be a weakened Speaker Boehner. And I think that more than anything else right now is the goal of a lot of people inside the conservative movement.

They see a vulnerable speaker, they see somebody who`s faced set-back after set-back in dealing with these conservative members, and right now a lot of them smell blood.

It`s not only harmful for Boehner, it`s harmful for McConnell as well, because over in the Senate, he has won it, he is the guy, remember, who said no more shutdowns.

There will not be any Republican shutdowns in this new Congress. Now, he has a bunch of stuff he wants to get to. He wants this week to get to a Keystone veto override.

He has to get to Loretta Lynch, the President`s nominee for Attorney General. And Congress is also in the middle of trying to figure out what to do with this war resolution that President Obama has asked for.

So there are far more pressing matters that the Congress right now could be focusing on, but they`re not.

O`DONNELL: Now, let`s listen to Republican Peter King who can`t be out-Republican by anyone. Let`s listen to what he has to say about this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. PETER KING (R), NEW YORK: There`s a wing within the Congress which is absolutely irresponsible. They have no concept of reality.

Listen, I am as opposed to the President`s immigration action as they are. But the fact is, it`s essential that we fund the Department of Homeland Security.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O`DONNELL: Steve LaTourette, what do the tea party types in the house think when they hear Peter King say that?

LATOURETTE: Well, they get mad, and you know, he like I were squishers, were traders, were kind of vivid moderate and so forth and so on.

And you know, but Peter and I on this issue, we --

O`DONNELL: Well --

LATOURETTE: Think alike --

O`DONNELL: Steve, can I interrupt you for a second?

LATOURETTE: Sure.

O`DONNELL: Peter King is not a moderate. I`m not sure you fit the definition of moderate. What you are, are people who are actually able to see realistically what the playing field will allow.

That doesn`t make you a moderate, that just makes you someone who knows how to get from here to there.

LATOURETTE: Well, thank you for the compliment. But one of my wife`s favorite stories is when I was elected in 1994, another guy from Ohio, Steve Chabot who is very conservative.

And we used to say that, and she said after this 2010 election, you remember when we thought Chabot was a conservative? He`s like a moderate now.

So the scale continues to shift a little bit. But no, I think that Peter and I come from the governing wing of the party.

We -- you know, we actually think when you work for the government, govern is a big part of the government word.

And you should try and figure out a way out of it rather than just figuring out a way to blow it up. And when you talk about, you know, the speaker being in trouble, OK, he`s in trouble, but once again they don`t have a plan B.

So you throw John Boehner out, but who is going to be the speaker? They don`t know, I mean Louie Gohmert to -- or Daniel Webster or -- plain -- get out -- or the -- my favorite was the guy from Florida, Yahoo or Yoho, Yoho, excuse me.

And then he voted for himself. He was the only guy who voted for himself on opening day, but he says Yoho for Yoho, is that what we want in this country?

O`DONNELL: Don`t tempt us with such entertaining options as possible speaker. You know, Orrin Hatch, Senator Orrin Hatch, Republican Orrin Hatch has a new name for this problematic wing in the -- in the house Republicans.

FOUHY: They don`t -- he says they don`t want to work with anyone on the left. They don`t --

O`DONNELL: Yes --

FOUHY: Want to work with anybody a little bit to the left of them --

O`DONNELL: They don`t want to work --

FOUHY: Very right --

O`DONNELL: They don`t want to work with Peter King --

(LAUGHTER)

Leftist Peter King.

FOUHY: Oh, you know, they --

O`DONNELL: Yes --

FOUHY: Don`t want to work with Steve King, but not Peter King.

O`DONNELL: Right --

FOUHY: No, but the weird thing about this house Republicans is, they don`t know how to win.

O`DONNELL: Yes --

FOUHY: They won with a historic majority in November. They could do so much and be so --

O`DONNELL: With Steve`s point --

FOUHY: Productive --

O`DONNELL: They had a huge victory with the court where they could have easily claimed --

FOUHY: Right --

O`DONNELL: That does it --

FOUHY: That`s the other thing --

O`DONNELL: You know, the court has stopped the executive action.

FOUHY: Exactly --

O`DONNELL: Therefore, we`re going to move on, on this bill, they had a perfect out.

FOUHY: Right, they are -- what`s the expression? They`re snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. They could have declared victory, gone home, moved on to more pressing matters.

Instead they have to re-enforce this image of themselves as being obstructionist, as being unwilling to do the people`s business. It`s very destructive.

O`DONNELL: Jeremy Peters, to that question of the side that`s trying to undermine John Boehner, Republicans trying to undermine him, who would they suggest as a possible speaker if they could depose Boehner?

PETERS: I think Steve is absolutely right, they do not have a viable contender. Daniel Webster was their choice, you know, he didn`t end up getting more than a handful of votes in January.

So they don`t -- and this is a problem for the conservative movement right now. And I spent the afternoon talking to a lot of people, a lot of activists inside the movement and they were actually expressing a lot of frustration right now.

That with regards to the DHS funding fight, they don`t have a plan to move forward. And they think that that`s kind of problematic of the state of the movement in general right now.

Is, they don`t -- they know how to say no, they know how to oppose the President`s agenda, but they don`t have a way to articulate how they would govern.

And that`s a real problem, especially if you look at 2016. And it`s also, interestingly enough, opened the door for a personality-driven movement.

So you have people like, you know, Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, these larger-than-life characters who fill -- then fill that void, because it`s really not a movement that has articulated a lot of ideas.

O`DONNELL: So Steve, is the Boehner move just to sit back and let the Democrats who use this rule to get a vote in the house on the Senate bill?

LATOURETTE: I don`t know. I do know for a fact in full disclosure John Boehner is a good friend of mine, that he met with his most trusted members of the house for a long time Friday afternoon.

And they`re -- and they`re attempting to come up with a strategy to deal with this. And against all of our advice, I mean I advised him for a number of years, this same bunch advised him.

We told him, if you want to turn the corner here, you got to chop off a few heads figuratively, not literally, and you`ve got to take no prisoners.

And the example is that Nancy Pelosi wouldn`t let this happen and John shouldn`t either.

O`DONNELL: But what tools does he have -- what is the chopping off of heads?

LATOURETTE: Well, you know, I don`t think it`s appropriate that after six of the members who voted against him on opening day have now been promoted to be subcommittee chairmen on committees.

That certainly does not send the heightened message, and so I think that stripping people of that sort of thing would send the right message, but promoting them for -- you sticking their finger in your eye, that probably emboldens them.

O`DONNELL: Former Congressman Steve LaTourette gets the last word on this tonight. Thanks very much for joining us tonight sir.

LATOURETTE: Thank you.

O`DONNELL: Beth, Jeremy, hang around, we got more to cover here about the breaking news about Hillary Clinton`s personal e-mails while she was Secretary of State.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

O`DONNELL: We had a breaking news report from the "New York Times" which we`re just getting through right now, indicating that "Hillary Clinton may have violated federal requirements that official correspondence be retained as part of the State Department`s records."

She used only personal e-mail when she was at the State Department, she never had a State Department e-mail address. That breaking news story is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

O`DONNELL: We have breaking news from the "New York Times". The "Times" has just posted a new report that says when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, she exclusively used a personal e-mail account for all of her government business and that that might have violated federal rules.

The "Times" reports that her aides did not preserve the e-mails on State Department servers as required by the federal records Act.

The "Times" also reports that Hillary Clinton did not have a government e-mail address during the four years that she was at the State Department.

The e-mail account was discovered by the house committee investigating the Benghazi attack, according to the "Times" report. Back with me is MSNBC`s Beth Fouhy and Jeremy Peters of the "New York Times".

Jeremy, this is a rather startling development to the -- and we`re just getting it from the "Times" now.

It is not unusual for people in Hillary Clinton`s position to have a personal e-mail account, but according to everyone`s understanding of it, it is only supposed to be used for government business in an emergency.

When, say, there was some problem in the State Department`s servers and they couldn`t use that e-mail. What do you expect the reaction to be tomorrow on Capitol Hill about this?

PETERS: Well, as you correctly pointed out, Steve -- Lawrence, it`s not unusual for candidates -- elected officials to have these personal e-mail accounts.

What is unusual is for them to conduct all of their business on these personal e-mail accounts. Now as a reporter who`s filed public information requests for these types of correspondence before, you know, you would typically see that not all business is being conducted in the open like it should be.

Now, as my colleague Michael Schmitt(ph), who is a really tenacious reporter and dug around a lot trying to figure this out, discovered, you know, Hillary Clinton has opened herself up to, you know, a really big question here.

Which is how forthcoming is she willing to be? And this is an issue that kind of dogged her when she ran in 2008, that she was trying to keep things from getting out into the public.

And I think for anyone who thinks that we`ve seen all there is to see about Hillary Clinton, that all of her dirty laundry has been aired, you know, they`re realizing now that, that`s just not the case.

O`DONNELL: Beth, the "Times" report indicates that under federal law, these kind of the -- official e-mails reserved for the state are considered government records and they`re supposed to be retained so that Congressional committees, historians and members of the news media can find them.

Also that John Kerry, for example, has always used nothing but State Department`s e-mail as secretary. And there`s another expert in here saying that personal e-mails are not secure, senior officials should not be using them.

And this is not, you know, a senior official at the Environmental Protection Agency of the Department of Agriculture. This is the Secretary of State, using a not-secure, commercial e-mail system.

FOUHY: Right. And as fabulous as the story is, an incredible reporting by the "New York Times". I just have to think there`s something more going on here.

Because there`s just -- it raises so many questions. I mean number one, where were the State Department lawyers who allowed this to go forward?

Where were the people, you know, top diplomats in other countries receiving these e-mails from you know, hrc@yahoo.com or something like that.

Saying, wait a minute, this can`t possibly be, an official message from the Secretary of State of the United States. I mean, there`s just so many questions that are unanswered about this.

I mean she is a very secretive person, there`s no question about it as Jeremy mentioned. And yet, she understands rules and she understands protocol.

And for her to just willingly violate it just to preserve some semblance of privacy just really makes no sense. I`m really looking forward -- she`s got a big speech tomorrow night at the Emily`s List 30th Anniversary dinner.

She`s going to have to address this there and I`m really curious to see what she`s going to have to say --

O`DONNELL: I suspect she will not have any real addressing of it in that location. Well, Jeremy, the CIA director in Bill Clinton`s administration as I recall got into very serious trouble by having some of his CIA information at a computer at home.

But nothing like this were in effect all of the electronic communication that she was issuing on e-mail was sent out into a -- to a -- basically through a private company to distribute.

Now, this is a stunning breach of security.

PETERS: Right. And that`s one of the things that my colleague Michael Schmitt raises in the story, is you know, the -- we don`t know if the e-mail she was using, even though it was personal was somehow encrypted.

You know, there are just so many unanswered questions right here. And I think that this story is going to continue to play out for a few more days.

O`DONNELL: Well, if it`s true that she never used a State Department e-mail address, we have something that, at first-read, has no conceivable rational explanation to what that is legitimate.

What -- or I mean Beth, what could it possibly be? I mean --

FOUHY: And you know what is the other sort of amazing thing about it, is this was uncovered basically by the Benghazi Committee. And --

O`DONNELL: Yes --

FOUHY: Democrats and opponents of the Benghazi Committee have been going on and on saying they`re just wasting their time, all this questions have been answered.

This is just political or this is just redundant. And yet, we have an example of something very significant that was raised by this committee.

So I think this emboldens Republicans to continue to sort of pry away at her and to see what else she`s hiding.

O`DONNELL: Well, it`s been on -- the "New York Times" is on it, I mean the media is going to be all over it. It doesn`t matter what the Republican do at this point.

Beth Fouhy and Jeremy Peters, thank you both for joining me tonight.

PETERS: Thank you.

O`DONNELL: Coming up, the Islamic State threatens the life of the founder and CEO of Twitter and "Saturday Night Live" could be next after their commercial parody about the Islamic State this weekend.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

O`DONNELL: Islamic State supporters threatens to wage war, a real war they say, against Twitter billionaire co-founder Jack Dorsey and all Twitter employees.

Twitter`s terms of service bans any direct specific threats of violence against others and it regularly takes down Islamic State propaganda and accounts.

An online post that included a picture of Jack Dorsey in cross hairs. The Islamic State supporters wrote, "your virtual war on us will cause a real war on you, when our lions come and take your breath, you will never come back to life."

It is unclear who wrote the post threatening Jack Dorsey and everyone who works at Twitter. Twitter says that its security team is investigating the veracity of these threats with relevant law enforcement officials.

He`s also the Chief Innovation Officer for Flash Point Partners. Also joining us "Cnbc" contributor Herb Greenberg. Evan Kohlmann, how seriously do you take this threat?

EVAN KOHLMANN, TERRORISM ANALYST: Well, this is not officially ISIS, it`s ISIS supporters. Palestinian ISIS supporters who speak Arabic and who put this thing out in Arabic.

So the idea that there`s going to be legions of English-speaking ISIS supporters who are going to take arms up on this, well, not unless they read it in the newspaper, an American newspaper.

On the other hand, some of the details in this threat are chilling, because this group is actually not saying that ISIS is going to kill Jack Dorsey or Twitter employees, it`s calling for a lone wolf attacks in the spirit of "Charlie Hebdo" targeting Twitter employees.

And in very mundane ways, there is talk about attacking Twitter employees when they exit a bar or something like that. And that`s kind of scary, because that is something that`s within the realm of someone who is an idiot.

Who is a fool, who is lording by ISIS propaganda and it`s looking to make a name for themselves, looking for celebrity status. You just see right now, it`s an instantaneous celebrity status.

You go after Jack Dorsey or Twitter employees and that`s I think what we`re worried about, that someone is going to take advantage of this in order to get publicity for themselves because they see ISIS on TV.

O`DONNELL: And Herb Greenberg, as Evan said, this doesn`t have to be someone who makes his way from Syria or somewhere over there.

It can be someone in the United States already, it takes exactly one to attack Jack Dorsey. What does a company like this do in a situation like this?

HERB GREENBERG, JOURNALIST: Well, I think, if you`re Twitter and you have 3,600 employees, you obviously have concern about those employees as any good company would do.

But you have to continue to move on with your -- with your other business. So in other words, you`re obviously looking at your security and you are trying to calm people down and remind them that you could walk outside anytime and something bad could happen unrelated to all this.

But they`ve got -- I`ve got to tell you something, Lawrence. They have much bigger things to worry about from a business perspective --

O`DONNELL: Oh, no, they don`t.

GREENBERG: -- than this.

O`DONNELL: Oh, no, no, Herb. That`s CNBC Television. There`s nothing more important to worry about than a death threat, absolutely nothing.

Nothing can happen in business that`s worse than being assassinated.

GREENBERG: I get it, and I know where you`re coming from. And, obviously, none of us want to be the focus of a death threat or something like that.

It is chilling, it is. It`s horrible. But you still have a business to run. This isn`t the television of CNBC.

If you`re sitting there, looking at the business you`re running, you have other things to do. You don`t stop all of a sudden and say, "Guys, let`s stop. Let`s run for cover."

You have other things to do. You have to.

O`DONNELL: Evan, this company, as Herb just said, 3,600 employees, different campuses around the world. They are not secure at their perimeters necessarily the way, say, a movie studio is.

You can`t get on to the Paramount lot. If you threaten the Chairman of Paramount, you`re going to have to get him when he leaves.

You know, you can`t just walk in the lobby of the building. These are very vulnerable facilities. And this seems a very risky situation.

EVAN KOHLMANN, AMERICAN TERRORISM CONSULTANT: I think it`s really the employees that I feel sorry for --

O`DONNELL: Yes.

KOHLMANN: -- here because of the fact that, look, you know, you talk about the U.S. Military and how ISIS is looking through Facebook and LinkedIn.

And they`re looking for profiles of U.S. Military or Saudi Military and Jordanian Military. And they`re collecting this information and they`re harvesting it, trying to come up with target list.

And I think it`s very scary. And I understand the perspective of Twitter employees, the idea that, "I didn`t realize that it was something I had to worry about --

O`DONNELL: Right.

KOHLMANN: -- by putting in my resume that I worked for Twitter." And I think, --

GREENBERG: But wait a minute.

KOHLMANN: -- that`s the problem.

O`DONNELL: Go ahead, Herb. Quickly.

GREENBERG: Where do we start -- where do we start saying then, at any company. So, basically, they know -- you know, look, this group knows how to, sort of, strike fear into the hearts of everybody.

They could just systematically go around the United States and start targeting, whether it`s Facebook or IBM or Google, or anyone who dares get in their way.

And you -- I think, you reach a point where, that is real but, again, there`s the other side of the equation and that is, there`s still, you know, the world still goes on.

O`DONNELL: Looks like that`s the way they`re going to handle it so far. Evan Kohlmann, quickly, before we go -- Bill Clinton`s Director for CIA, John Deutch, was convicted of federal crimes and then pardoned by President Clinton for misusing classified information on his home computer.

Here is Hillary Clinton, using personal e-mail for all of her State Department e-mail communication, which must have included, at some point, --

KOHLMANN: Classified information.

O`DONNELL: -- classified information. This seems like an incredibly dangerous area for Hillary Clinton.

KOHLMANN: I think what the problem here is just that if she was using a service like Gmail or like Yahoo, we know that governments like China had infiltrated these services, looking at the accounts of people who are dissidents, who are threats to them.

We also know that they`ve been looking at accounts of people that run major corporations.

And, obviously, also American politicians. And I think, the problem is is that we don`t know at this point what kind of encryption she might have used.

Trying to put encryption on private e-mail, by the way, because we do this, it`s not easy. It`s quite a challenge. It requires technical sophistication.

Who did that. Who made sure that that registered up to the standards that we would have government e-mail. I mean, government e-mail is secured. It`s quite secure.

I don`t think you can expect that from Gmail or Yahoo. And I think that -- look, the former Secretary of State has got to answer that question -- what happened to that classified information.

O`DONNELL: All right, we`re going to break it right there. Evan Greenberg, thank you very much for joining us tonight. We really appreciate it. Thank you.

Coming up, our next guest says Saturday Night Live`s did more to hurt ISIS than any bombing campaign.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

O`DONNELL: Well, it was bound to happen. The Islamic State finally got the SNL treatment on Saturday night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TARAN KILLAM, ACTOR: Well, this is it. You need any help with your bag?

DAKOTA JOHNSON, ACTRESS: No, that`s all right. I got it.

KILLAM: How about some walking around money.

JOHNSON: Dad, it`s OK.

KILLAM: OK. Just make sure to --

JOHNSON: Call you when I get there? I know.

KILLAM: Yes. You know, you could stay home, do another year of high school.

(LAUGHTER)

JOHNSON: Very funny, Dad.

(LAUGHTER)

Jokester.

KILLAM: Well, I`ll see you at Thanksgiving.

JOHNSON: Yes, I`ll see you.

Hey, dad.

KILLAM: Yes?

JOHNSON: Thanks.

KILLAM: You got it, kiddo. Looks like your ride`s here.

(LAUGHTER)

You be careful, OK.

JOHNSON: Dad, it`s just ISIS.

(LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE)

KILLAM: Take care of her.

UNIDENTIFIED ACTOR: Death to America.

(LAUGHTER)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE-OVER: ISIS, we`ll take it from here, dad.

(LAUGHTER)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O`DONNELL: Joining us now, H.A. Goodman, a columnist with "The Huffington Post and "The Hill`s" "Congress Blog." And comedienne, Negin Farsad, who co-produced the documentary, "The Muslims are Coming."

All right, Negin, first of all, was it funny.

(LAUGHTER)

NEGIN FARSAD, COMEDIENNE: I did think it was funny. I mean -- and, you know, and SNL is an always like terribly funny. And this was actually really funny.

And I actually thought it was great because they were -- there was a pointed satire on a specific group of ISIS, as opposed to just a blanket satire, an entire region or an entire religion.

This was a very pointed target. And I think they really did a great job.

O`DONNELL: H.A. Goodman, your reaction to it.

H.A. GOODMAN, "THE HUFFINGTON POST" COLUMNIST: Well, I mean, my "Huffington Post" article says it all. It was very funny.

It was funny, number one, because Mel Brooks has similar type of comedy -- "History of the World" and "To Be or not To Be." The second reason is because, there`s a one in 20 million chance of getting killed as an American in a terrorist attack. This was in "The Washington Post."

And the third reason, primarily is, ISIS has two marketing departments. One is its own, where it commits atrocities and then videotapes the atrocity to frighten millions of people. And the other is Fox News and Bill O`Reilly and Sean Hannity, and all the people who go ahead and tell you that you must be afraid of ISIS.

The SNL skit, they should go ahead and do that same type of ISIS skit every single week. And I applaud them.

I think that every comedian should go ahead and have an ISIS routine because you`re not going to get your head cut off by ISIS. You have a better chance of getting hit by lightning. So, and that`s something that Fox News, that`s something that the people on the right won`t tell you, because they want to send ground troops back to Iraq. We already had two wars. We don`t need another war, especially with a group that doesn`t have a Navy, doesn`t have nuclear weapons.

They can`t hurt us the way people on Fox will try to tell people though they can. So, I think it`s a great -- I think it`s a great thing.

I think more Americans should poke fun of ISIS. I think that ISIS, ultimately, should become a punchline.

And that`ll hurt recruiting. It will make us safer, at least, because we`re not going to be afraid of something that really can`t hurt this country.

It`s really our reaction to ISIS and to terror that can hurt us, not the terrorists themselves.

O`DONNELL: Now, Evan Kohlmann, clearly, the Islamic State can take a joke.

(LAUGHTER)

I mean, right. I mean, there`s no -- I mean, come on, what`s the --

KOHLMANN: Well, look, I mean, I --

O`DONNELL: -- what`s the reaction inside the Islamic State.

KOHLMANN: I mean that -- sure that they find this terribly amusing. Look, I take this in a slightly different way. I think this is poking fun at our counter-message.

And anyone who looks at this and condemns SNL for poking fun at this, I ask them, the fact that we haven`t been able to develop a counter-message to a group that thrives and open -- its open policy is murder, rape, bigotry and racism, and we can`t come up with a counter-message for this, don`t you think we deserve to get made fun of?

Doesn`t that -- isn`t that something that deserves to get made fun of. I think so.

O`DONNELL: The State Department and Rick Stengel`s division is running an entire social media thing that`s supposed to be combating --

KOHLMANN: And they`re doing a fantastic job.

O`DONNELL: But, seriously, within the Islamic State, what reaction will they have to this.

KOHLMAN: Look, they`re going to find this to be a waste of time. They may even find this amusing.

They think it`s funny how easy for them to recruit young people, particularly young girls, and lure them from the United States and the U.K. to Iraq.

They might find this terribly amusing. And that`s the sad part because we`re -- the thing that has drawn the most amount of attention to the fact this group is literally luring these girls like pedophiles to Syria is an SNL skit.

Shouldn`t the approbation and the self-righteousness -- shouldn`t that have come from the fact that there are pedophiles in Syria, who are luring 15-year-old girls to go there. That seems more appropriate to me.

O`DONNELL: All right, well, Elisabeth Hasselbeck disagrees with you, disagrees with all of you. Let`s listen to her.

HASSELBECK: It`s actually hard to watch. You know, when you watch it time and time again, you think, really, how insensitive can you get.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O`DONNELL: Negin?

FARSAD: So, actually, I Elisabeth Hasselbeck is like a jewel for ISIS right now because, there, she has the same amount of outrage, and a lot of people on Twitter have the same amount of outrage over this SNL sketch as they did over seeing an emulation of a human being that ISIS put up, like we can`t have the same level of outrage on these two things, you know.

SNL was doing a parody, a comedy. And I think it`s ridiculous to create this kind of outrage.

I feel like we all need to calm down. I feel like the outrage over this video is just proof positive that America needs to take a nice kickboxing class and like really let that stress go.

(LAUGHTER)

O`DONNELL: But, now, listen, I`m going to defend every reaction.

FARSAD: OK.

(LAUGHTER)

O`DONNELL: Meaning, -- because, look, I mean, you know, and you can look at thing -- you and I can watch something and say, "That`s funny, that`s funny, that`s funny."

Then I say, "That`s funny," you say, "That`s not funny." I mean, what`s funny is a completely personal decision.

Elisabeth Hasselbeck and everybody else has a right to the, "It`s not funny" part. And I think there`s also a right to the idea that it`s very insensitive to do this.

I get that. I mean, it`s not the way it strikes me but I get what she`s saying.

FARSAD: I mean, but what`s the -- I mean, I think, you know, your guest has a really good point. We have not created an appropriate counter-narrative --

O`DONNELL: Uh-hmm.

FARSAD: -- that deflates their ideology. And that`s -- and comedy is a way to do that. You know, I think that comedies are really good routes.

We`ve tried the war thing. We`ve been variably successful at that. So, I think it`s a good time to try something completely different. And SNL is onto it.

O`DONNELL: Let`s look at Taram Killam`s tweet about this. He said, "Proud of this. Freedom to mock is our greatest weapon. Thanks to the writers who asked not to be mentioned by name." So, Evan, clearly, they asked not to be mentioned by name because they`re a little bit worried.

KOHLMANN: Look, I mean, after what happened with "Charlie Hebdo" cartoons, --

O`DONNELL: Yes.

KOHLMANN: -- I understand why.

O`DONNELL: Yes.

KOHLMANN: And it makes perfect sense. I don`t think they`re going to be targeted by this.

I think ISIS revels in this. And, again, anyone who feels the self-righteousness over this or feels sensitive over this, feels sensitive over the fact that DHF is about to be defunded, feels sensitive about the fact that the Iraqi Army is wasting billions of our dollars and is accomplishing nothing.

That`s something that people feel sensitive about.

O`DONNELL: All right, that`s going to be the last word. Evan Kohlmann, H.A. Goodman and Negin Farsad, thank you very much for joining me tonight.

KOHLMANN: Thank you.

O`DONNELL: Coming up, a skydiver has a seizure in mid-air.

We will show you the video of how he was saved.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

O`DONNELL: And, now, for the "Good News," the amazing news. A skydiver has a seizure in mid-air and his instructor saves him. NBC`s Katie Tour has the story.

(BEGIN VIDEOCTAPE)

KATIE TUR, NBC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Twelve thousand feet from the earth, the only thing between Christopher Jones and the western Australian ground, the courage to jump, as he had so many times before.

But, 22 seconds into this dive, he says he was suddenly paralyzed by a seizure, unconscious and falling at 120 miles an hour. Instructor Sheldon McFarland shot towards him, not wanting to rely on the automatic emergency chute.

It took two attempts to grab Jones and pull the rip cord. Then, with 3,000 feet to go, Jones regained consciousness and managed to make a controlled landing.

CHRISTOPHER JONES, SKYDIVER WHO HAD SEIZURE IN THE SKY: I said, "Thank you very much," I think. Yes, that`s what I said, "Thank you for saving my life."

MCFARLAND: Train to do and what we train other people, you know, so --

TUR: Twenty-two-year-old, Jones, took up skydiving when his epilepsy ruled out his dream of becoming a pilot. Seizure-free for four years, his doctors gave him the go ahead.

JONES: I`ve always wanted to fly planes or I just want the feeling of flying. And, obviously, with my condition, I can`t be a pilot, so, I thought, next best thing, I can fly myself.

TUR: About 5 million people have clicked on the death-defying fall, giving Jones 5 million reminders to keep his feet on solid ground. Katie Tur, NBC News, London.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

O`DONNELL: Who was the first black player in the NBA. The answer is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

O`DONNELL: Please endure just a couple more commercials and we`ll be right back with the story of the second African-American man, who was drafted into the NBA but became the first one to play in the game.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

O`DONNELL: Basketball was invented in Springfield, Massachusetts in 1891. It is our most purely American team sport, with no foreign antecedent like baseball`s cricket or football`s futbol.

When basketball was five years old, the first professional game was played on November 7th, 1896 in Trenton, New Jersey. Each player was paid $15 for that game, except Fred Cooper who was paid $16.

And, in that game, Fred Cooper became basketball`s first highest paid player.

In the NBA player draft of 1950, the Boston Celtics was the first team to draft an African-American player, Chuck Cooper. The Celtics picked Chuck Cooper, a forward, in the second round of the draft.

And in the ninth round of the draft, the Washington Capitals drafted Earl Lloyd, also a forward. Three and a half years after Jackie Robinson integrated professional baseball by taking the field for the Brooklyn Dodgers, Earl Lloyd became the first African-American to play in an NBA game.

He scored six points and led both teams in rebounds with 10. That game earned Earl Lloyd induction into the Basketball Hall of Fame in 2003 as the NBA`s First African-American Player.

The day after Earl Lloyd`s first game, Chuck Cooper played his first game for the Celtics. And three days after that, Sweetwater Clifton, who had been playing for the Harlem Globetrotters, played his first game for the New York Knicks.

It was simply lack of the schedule that gave Earl Francis Lloyd his historic position in basketball, something he acknowledged when inducted into the hall of fame.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EARL FRANCIS LLOYD, FIRST BLACK AMERICAN TO PLAY IN THE NBA: I wouldn`t miss -- there were some unusual circumstances in 1950 that forever entwine the lives of two other people with me.

They`re no longer standing but they are right here. And I speak of Chuck Cooper and Sweetwater Clifton. I would be remiss if I didn`t mention that.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O`DONNELL: Earl Lloyd went on to play for the Syracuse Nationals and he played for the Washington Capitals. Let`s see -- before, he was drafted into the Army during the Korean War, then he played for the Syracuse Nationals.

Earl Lloyd played his last two seasons with the Detroit Pistons. And, in 1960, became the NBA`s First African-American Assistant Coach.

`He intended to continue playing as an assistant coach but he dropped that idea the first time he saw the NBA`s new giant. "When we played Philadelphia in Hershey, Pennsylvania," he said, "for an exhibition game, I saw Wilt Chamberlain for the first time. I quit right there. I said, `Coach, the guy isn`t real. You`ve got your assistant coach.`"

The first African-American Coach in the NBA was the Boston Celtic`s legend, Bill Russell, who became the team`s player coach in 1966.

In 1971, Earl Lloyd became the first non-playing African-American coach in the NBA with the Detroit Pistons. Detroit`s biggest star of that era, hall-of-famer, Dave Bing, who was later elected mayor of Detroit, said this about Coach Lloyd --

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVE BING, RETIRED HALL OF FAME BASKETBALL PLAYER: He taught a lot of us how to play the game. But, more importantly, he taught us how to be good citizens, how to be good ambassadors for this game of basketball.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O`DONNELL: In 2007, Earl Lloyd told "The Washington Post", that he was surprised that he was drafted by the Washington Capitals, because, having grown up across the river in Washington and Alexandria, Virginia, he considered the Washington area, quote, "a cradle of segregation."

Earl Lloyd wasn`t hit with the glare of public attention that Jackie Robinson had to contend with. He once told the "Detroit Free Press," --

"That first game was really uneventful. And there was no publicity on it. Remember, at the time, the NBA was this little ho-hum league. Some high schools drew more fans to games."

In that first season as a player, Earl Lloyd`s second road game was in Fort Wayne, Indiana, where he was not allowed to eat in the restaurant of the hotel the team was staying.

And he remembered his coach`s reaction this way, "My coach, Bones McKinney, a southerner, came up to my room and said he wanted to eat with me. I said, `Bones, you`ve got nine other players downstairs. You`ve got to take care of your team. The important thing is I know how you feel.`"

"I told Bones how much I appreciated the gesture."

Throughout my career, I never experienced one covert racist incident with a team or opponent. Perhaps because the basketball players were college educated, and so many had played with blacks before.

But Earl Lloyd heard racial epithets many times from the fans and ignored them all because his parents taught him to, quote, "never dignify ignorance." Earl Lloyd said, "My philosophy was, if they weren`t calling you names, you weren`t doing nothing. If they`re calling you names, you are hurting them."

On Friday, I got an e-mail from Bill Russell`s daughter, Karen Russell, telling me that Earl Lloyd, the First Black Player in the NBA, had just died. Her note said when her father joined the NBA in 1956 with Boston Celtics, Earl Lloyd warned him about where he wouldn`t be able to get served when he was on the road.

The last line of Karen Russell`s e-mail to me said, quote, "We`ve come a long way."

END

<Copy: Content and programming copyright 2015 MSNBC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Copyright 2015 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>